Today's New York Times has an interesting profile of the three physicists in the US Congress. Cornelia Dean interviewed Vern Ehlers, Rush Holt, and Bill Foster as a group about the role of scientists in Congress. The physicists presented a very clear unified message about their role, including some valuable opinions about what is important and what isn't for a physicist-congressperson.
Here is one point that has been made plenty of times but seems to need repeating:
For example, Mr. Ehlers said, it is irksome to encounter people who ignore the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global warming yet count on science to produce new sources of energy magically. "They sort of reject our reasoning," he said. "But they will come back and say, ‘Science will find a way.' "
Another important point, which I think is often lost in debates about what is appropriate science education, came out:
What is needed is not more advanced degrees, the physicists said (they all have Ph.D.’s), but a capacity to take the long view, what Mr. Ehlers called the scientists’ ability to see from the pre-Cambrian era to the space age.
I'd be interested in reading your responses to what the physicists had to say.
Read more about physics in Congress in symmetry breaking.
